About your Search

20121010
20121010
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
in 1986 but are staring us in the face today. first, a much larger and much more dangerous deficit and second, a dramatic increase been income and inequality. old-style tax reform could make both conditions worse. but don't dismiss the old framework lightly. credit for the 1986 reform law belongs to democrats like bill bradley in the senate. just as much as to president reagan. as a member of the house back then, i not only voted for it, but i whipped the votes to make sure it passed. i was on the committee set up by dan rostenkowski to get it done. the approach made a good deal of sense at the time. then, as now, the code was littered with egregious loopholes that needed to be reformed. recall the so-called passive law schools that were in place back then. they allowed wealthy taxpayers to gain the system. someone could invest in a bowling alley and then, if the bowling alley lost money, they could take a write off many times larger than their initial money incestment of their entire income tax liability. we need to get rid of such a gimmicky tax shelter. paring these loopholes al
would call these gimmicks, the full ten year cost of this bill has of $460 billion deficit. the second has a one half trillion dollar deficit. probably the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. we don't think we should cut doctors' 21% next year. we stop those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years. we all call this the toxics. well, according to your numbers it cost her her $71 billion. it was in the first iteration of all these bills. because it was a big price tag and made the score look bad, may look like a deficit, that provision was taken out and has been going on in stand-alone legislation. ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. hiding spending does not reduce spending. and so when you take a look of this is just as not add up. let's finish with the cost curve. we bending the cost curve down or up? well, if you look at your own chief actuary of medicare revenue up. he is time we are going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have. and so when you take a look
for the economy. another important element is a private set her deficit. wow, another important reform has been to put into the constitution, a financial stability law, that means that the government is going to be more able to meet their objectives and to put a degree on the expand says and the deficit of the regional suspense, which is part of the issue because the expenditures from the central government, another part of the government in which you have tools in order to make them comply with your objectives. at the government has proper tools. and in the process of the fiscal situation as we see in this chart, we have a totally out-of-control deficits in the year 2009 with a deficit exceeding 11% of the gdp and now we are to reducing the step thursday of the very important issue and what the markets wonder if the capacity of the government to get to the 6.3%. there is a degree in the market and the capacity, but the government is confident that she can get this figure and i think it would be a very important message for the market. if it's able to comply with the objective of direction and
is he's talking about tax cuts and deficit reduction at the same time. and the pew poll that came out earlier this week, wolf, said six in ten voters believe that romney is promising more than he can deliver. one reason bill clinton's speech was so popular at the democratic convention was he said the arithmetic doesn't add up. so you can push is this just rhetoric during a campaign, or is this real? if you want to close tax loopholes, okay, fine. what loopholes would you close? he's got to answer that. and so far hasn't done it. >> his argument is i don't want to put all that out right now. because if he's president, he's going to have to negotiate all those issues with democrats. and why put your own position out right now. >> sure. >> i don't know if his argument's going to necessarily hold. that's another matter. a lot of folks have seen romney over these past couple weeks at the debate, in the interview with me, moving more towards the center. do you see that? >> i did. i saw that particularly in your interview when he talked about the wealthy and how his tax plan would affect the
is the lineup in the case as far as the deficits, who will hear it and decide? >> only eight justices will decide because justice elena kagan is recused having worked. so eight justices. it's a pretty good bet that for more conservative justices will vote to if not strike down entirely, limit the use of race. the others will go the other way and as usable, justice anthony kennedy will hold the deciding vote. he has on the one hand said some positive things about using race and about the importance of diversity. on the other hand, he's never in his career and voted to uphold an affirmative action plan so she is a real wild card. >> is it possible this could be a 4-4 decision? >> it's not likely that it's possible and if it were, that would have the effect without opinion and without reasoning from the supreme court automatically affirming the decision below which had up held the texas program manning the split would equal that affirmative action stays the way we know it today. >> is the university of texas the only school that uses this type of system? >> that's right this combination
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)